The Rabid Conservative

Think Right, Act Right, Be Right.

For Pro-Choicers, It’s Only About the Money

with 17 comments

If pro-choice advocates truly believed in keeping government out of the debate of abortion, they wouldn’t accept federal funds for Planned Parenthood.

Well, the Government averted a shutdown in the 11th hour and President Obama took the credit for hammering out a deal which keeps the government running without the distractions of social issues.  The thing is, the Democrats were full-ready to shut the government down because the GOP dared to suggest that one of the cuts should be to Planned Parenthood.  In short, Democrats were about to tell the military and the rest of the civilian support world that if Abortions-R-Us didn’t get paid, no one else deserved to get paid either.  In the end, they showed their true colors – something you don’t see from the Lib-crats.

Every year, the US Government shells out

What gets me is photos like the one to the right, particularly the woman with the sign in the center of the photo.  Yes, it’s pretty crude, even for posting on The Rabid Conservative, but

If she were speaking the truth, she would be saying, “Keep your Boehner out of my Government subsidy”.  For these pink-clad tarts, it has nothing to do with reproductive rights – for nothing in the spending bills tell them they can’t go out and get preg-ed and have abortions at will, at the drop of a hat.  No, this is all about protecting the pro-choice gravy train – ensuring that if a woman wants an abortion, they can get the government (through Planned Parenthood) to pay for it. 

If these women truly wanted the government out of their…uhh…business, they wouldn’t make such a big deal out of this.  In other words, if pro-choice advocates truly believed in keeping government out of the debate of abortion, they wouldn’t accept federal funds for Planned Parenthood.  So why are they have their proverbial panties in a bunch?  Because the GOP is threatening to cut off the money, that’s why.

For Lib-crats, it’s all about the money.  Let’s take another topic: teaching intelligent design in public schools, or public displays of Christianity at school events.  When these topics come up, the American Crazy Liberals Union is the first to step in and say, “oh no no, that violates the Establishment Clause!”.  Since the Establishment Clause is all about Congress establishing a religion, the Lib-crats make the point that since the schools are Government-Funded  they can’t teach anything that even remotely hints at religious overtones.  Lib-crats threaten cutting off tax-exempt status to churches that preach politics from the pulpit.  Why?  That establishment clause again – because of the money spent.

The government spends money on abortion – plain and simple.  This isn’t exactly keeping Uncle Sam out of the topic of so-called “reproductive rights” because what it does is it advocates for one side of a controversial issue by funding it.  Cutting off funding doesn’t mean the government has suddenly gone pro-life, it only means that they won’t fund the pro-choice effort either. 

Defund Planned Parenthood and let them stand on their own.  Let’s spend federal money on things that benefit ALL Americans, not just the ones that choose to devalue life through slaughter of the unborn.


Written by The Rabid Conservative

April 9, 2011 at 3:40 pm

17 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. As you don’t seem to be aware, the Hyde Amendment prevents any federal funds received by Planned Parenthood being used for abortion.

    What all this fuss amounted to, therefore, was a threat to defund pap smears, contraception and the like to uninsured women.

    Ironically by removing funds they might well have raised the number of unwanted pregnancies and with it the number of abortions.

    They would also have reduced the rate of early cancer detection in uninsured women, resulting in preventable deaths in the wealthiest country in the world.

    That would not have been a sensible course of action.

    Tony Sidaway

    April 10, 2011 at 10:21 pm

  2. I know about the Hyde Amendment, thank you very much. It’s one of the very few stop gaps out there that control the slaughter of the unborn. The thing is, the way to get around that is through simple accounting. PP gets about $350 million from the federal government every year, but that’s not the only funding source for PP. So, if PP spends the federal money on non-abortion related activities and other funding on abortion-related, then they’ve just skirted the Hyde Amendement. That’s why they need to be defunded…or did you not realize that?

    Planned Parenthood is a key advocate for abortions, plain and simple. While pro-choicers out there start throwing out the red herrings about pap smears and contraception education, 98% of Planned Parenthood’s business is all about abortion, from making sure that laws passed are abortion-friendly, to maintaining confidentiality for those 14 year-old girls who get preg-ed and then start freaking out because of what mommy and daddy are going to think.

    Since we’re talking about stuff that we don’t know about, do you even know who Margaret Sanger is? She started Planned Parenthood as a measure out of her support for eugenics, particularly against blacks. That’s a part of the PP history that they have, for years, been trying to keep buried. But today, who are their primary business clientele? Low-income women who keep getting pregnant – prostitutes (with their pimps) and kids who are taught that abstinence is mythical.

    Every PP affiliate must provide abortion by 2013. Now, tell me, if Planned Parenthood is constrained by the Hyde Amendment, but yet, are pushing for every PP affiliate to have at least one abortion center in 2013, seems to me that they contradict the “rare” as part of their “legal, safe, and rare” mandate.

    Nice try, through with the red herring.


    April 11, 2011 at 10:16 am

  3. “So, if PP spends the federal money on non-abortion related activities and other funding on abortion-related, then they’ve just skirted the Hyde Amendement.”

    How so? Aren’t they doing exactly what the Hyde Amendment says?

    “Nice try, through with the red herring.”

    No red herring intended. Is it your position that organizations supplying abortions should not receive federal funds at all? That is not what the Hyde Amendment says.

    Abortion is lawful in the United States. You are, I hope, aware of that.

    Tony Sidaway

    April 12, 2011 at 6:12 am

  4. >>Aren’t they doing exactly what the Hyde Amendment says?

    Yes they are in compliance with the Hyde Amendment – that’s the thing. They make sure that any federal money spent is not spent on the actual act of aborting a baby. That is the part covered under Title V Sec 507a. This means PP can expend funds on just about everything else that they do that would lead to an abortion. As long as they don’t actually pay for the abortion itself, they are okay. Further, if they can make the rape/incest/maternal peril case, then they can use federal money. (Sec 508 1&2). Subparagraphs B and C are exactly what I was trying to explain to you – that PP can use other money that they acquire to fund the abortions.

    So, your interpretation of the Hyde Amendment is inaccurate. Go read it and come back to me.

    Over one third of PP’s clinic revenue (non-gov’t money, just so we’re clear) comes from abortions, based on the costs of a first-trimester abortion. In 2009, PP provided 332,278 abortions (25% of all in the US – it’s a business to PP by the way) in their clinics. That equates to between $116.3 million to $315.6 million. And by the way, I wonder how much of that money is taxable revenue? Probably not much since they have managed to maintain non-profit status.

    Personally, if it were my amendment, I would say that no federal money would be provided for any organization, either directly or indirectly, that provides abortions. Period. That doesn’t make the law go away, that just means that the government doesn’t pay for it.

    And that’s what I keep going on about with respect to the economy, pal. Government should not use any of its tax collected revenue for things that are not specifically in the interests of all the citizens in the US. Paying the military – we all benefit. Maintaining diplomatic relationships through the Department of State, again, all benefit. Interstates and other national infrastructure, yeah, okay. Federal-funding for abortion organizations only benefits those women who avail themselves to their services – no so much. Abortion is another special interest that needs to be cut from the budget.

    >>Abortion is lawful in the United States. You are, I hope, aware of that.
    I’m not even going to grace that nonsensical jab with the dignity of a response.


    April 12, 2011 at 9:05 am

  5. We appear to be more or less agreed that Planned Parenthood’s operations are within the law. Presumable you also agree that the law could be changed to stop federal funds going to an organisation that performs abortions.

    It’s an interesting idea, that federal money must never be spent unless it benefits every single citizen. How would you feel about the cancelation of federal funding for a road from South Dakota to Minnesota on the grounds that this would not benefit the citizens of Hawaii? Would you have canceled federal funding of the Arpanet on the grounds that not every citizen had access to an account on a university connected to the network? Good thing you didn’t, eh? And how do you feel about federal funds going to scientific research into hereditary diseases? Surely only those descended from carriers of the relevant gene could benefit.

    I could list thousands upon thousands of such examples like this. You could probably think of a few yourself. But I don’t think you thought this through at all.

    Tony Sidaway

    April 12, 2011 at 11:34 am

  6. We do agree that PP operates within the law. However, what they are doing is unethical because of how they are doing it. Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an organization given to the destruction of human life. The numbers, even their own numbers, show that abortions are on the rise, PP-sponsored adoptions are down (the average is about 340-1) and their work in non-abortive means of reproductive health is continues to fall as their business of abortion rises. They make their biggest money selling abortions. Their market plan is to be the #1 provider of abortions in the US.

    And we support them at the tune of $350M per year. If PP actually worked towards helping people become healthy parents, that would be different. Parenthood is the last things on these peoples’ minds. Planned Parenthood is all about abortion rights, despite what they say. Did you miss the part about them mandating every affiliate offering abortion by 2013? Or the millions they take in through abortion (it’s a business to them). We are dumping $350M per year so they don’t have to tap that revenue they take in on abortion.

    Now, aside from that, abortion is also the senseless slaughter of human beings, so there is also a social difference. Abortionists like the idea of calling this “health care”, but one key point here. Of course, you’re probably one of these people that thinks abortion is okay and babies don’t get personhood status until they pass through a vagina or are extracted via c-section.

    With respect to other projects that don’t touch me, well, the way I see it, some of that stuff should be dropped too. We don’t need the FCC to be involved in the Internet at all. If States got to keep more of their own money, they could afford to fix their own roads. As for diseases, again, that’s a job better left to the private sector.

    The whole idea of government in general is to protect the rights of citizens and do those things that the citizens cannot do alone. Citizens cannot print money, negotiate treaties, regulate interstate commerce, or raise a functional army and navy. Liberals on the other hand believe that government should be involved in every aspect of peoples’ lives, and as such, government grows out of control.

    Abortion is just one example of this – it just happens to be the holy grail of liberal thought these days.

    As for your “I don’t think you thought this through” comment, I could give a rat’s patoot what YOU think. I have thought these things over and over and over and have argued in the court of public opinion for decades. Less government is better. Abortion is evil and murder. Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded. That’s all there is to it.


    April 12, 2011 at 12:07 pm

  7. I wouldn’t be the first Englishman to remark that a good definition of irony is a small-government conservative using a government-developed communication system that has revolutionized the world, to try to convince somebody who lives in another continent that less government is more.

    So it comes down to your antipathy to abortion. You falsely characterize Planned Parenthood, a not-for-profit which is required to use its surplus as working capital.

    You make a big fuss about the fact that they intend to provide abortion services in every branch. You must have forgotten what happened to George Tiller. They tried to railroad him, but the jury of his fellow citizens dismissed the score of trumped up charges. After delivering the verdict, in a rare move, they asked to convey their thoughts directly to Dr Tiller. The letter they sent him was a moving Thank You for his great work for the women of Kansas.

    A couple of months later, he was gunned down in a church by an anti-abortion zealot.

    That’s why they do it.

    Tony Sidaway

    April 12, 2011 at 1:10 pm

  8. >> I wouldn’t be the first Englishman to remark

    I get really annoyed when foreigners try to involve themselves in political matters of our country. Shouldn’t you be focusing on the Royal Wedding or something?

    First off, while the ARPA net has its beginnings as a government-sponsored research project, it has LONG since evolved past that – in fact, it’s not had to rely on the government since, oh, about 1970 when ARPAnet evolved from four sites, none of which a government facility, BTW, to 200 by 1980. It’s common lore to think that the government had a huge hand in standing up the internet. It was more of an effort by academia than government.

    >> You falsely characterize Planned Parenthood, a not-for-profit which is required to use its surplus as working capital.

    Strawman and factually inaccurate. Planned Parenthoods abortion revenue is working capital, not surplus. Surplus would be if they collected a profit for killing babies, which by the way, you seem to advocate.

    Dr. Tiller’s murder was just as reprehensible and evil as the abortions in which he participated, particularly as he performed late-terms. I don’t condone those who tried to kill him or succeeded in killing him. Stopping murder does not require murder – it requires morality. Regardless of that, it doesn’t make abortion or government sponsoring of it any less immoral and wrong, so that’s another red herring for you, pal.

    Anything more to say, Mr. Englishman?


    April 12, 2011 at 1:44 pm

  9. Federal funding continued, certainly, well into the 1990s (you may recall that Al Gore stuck his oar in) and I’d be most surprised to find that there was no continuing federal funding for the core internet technologies–certainly other governments are contributing, so it isn’t as if it would be in the national interest to relinquish all control of this still-developing technology.

    When I refer to the surplus of a non-profit making organisation, I employ the term in its conventional meaning of income above expenditure. Non-profit organisations do not distribute dividends, they must use their surplus in pursuit of their goals and not in rewarding shareholders.

    Abortion, I think I have stated, is lawful in the United States. It has been described by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right, meriting strict scrutiny of all challenges.

    I’m English but I greatly admire the United States. Me and Thomas Paine, we’re brothers.

    Tony Sidaway

    April 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm

  10. I understand about the SCOTUS decision regarding abortion as a so-called fundamental right, but even so, the court had no precedent for applying the law in this manner. The US Constitution is silent on the matters of life and society and under the 9th Amendment, it should have been left to the states. Liberals, again, do not believe in allowing people to govern themselves – they use the power of government to conform people to their will.

    The Supreme Court has erred before, particularly with the Dred Scott case. This is another one SCOTUS’ big errors as well, politically motivated. Roe was established without legal precedent and with no Constitutional basis whatsoever. Even now, most constitutional lawyers and scholars are in agreement that Roe is a constitutional train wreck, but they are not agreed as to why. Roe denied the basis of common law and took on a faux-precedent while foraging into new and uncharted territory with no plausible support.

    Another fundamental right is the right to life. People have a right to live. Liberals have long dismissed the claim that an unborn child is not a living person and not entitled to the right to life. I’ve argued on this blog before that just because a person hasn’t passed through the birth canal or been extracted via c-section, that baby should not be denied the right to personhood, even when medical science has confirmed heartbeat at 22 days, brainwave activity at day 42, all body systems present at 8 weeks, functional at 11 weeks, and has viability outside of the womb at 23 weeks. In short, the court arbitrarily applies the personhood definition.

    Blackmun did also write that if we could determine when life actually occurs, then the 14th Amendment would apply and Roe would effectively be shut down. So liberals, rather than look at the science behind fetal growth, choose to arbitrarily ignore that life begins at conception.

    Expenditure of federal funds should be to protect rights. Since we’ve presently defined the right to choose, repealing Planned Parenthood’s funding does not change the law nor does it restrict a person’s ability to abort a child. It only takes Government out of the argument completely, which was my initial point in this posting.

    With respect to Planned Parenthood’s use of money, whatever definition we use to employ does not change what they do. They take money from the federal government and use it to offset other expenditures on which they are legally disallowed to spend it. They then take the money from their baby chop shops and use it to futher their cause. I advocate taking that away from them completely and keeping government out of the business.


    April 12, 2011 at 5:10 pm

  11. “The US Constitution is silent on the matters of life and society”

    Well yes, it was also silent on slavery for a long time except for some unpromising bits about computations involving the number of slaves in a state.

    “under the 9th Amendment, it should have been left to the states”

    Excuse me, the 9th amendment says:
    “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    This seems to defend, rather than impugn, the notion that people have rights that are not enumerated in the constitution. Such as the right to control the contents of ones uterus. If you’re female, you have a uterus. You don’t get a choice. It’s a given.

    “The Supreme Court has erred before, particularly with the Dred Scott case.”

    That was when slavery was enshrined. So tell me again, why would you think this a good thing to bring up in the context of a law forbidding a woman to end her pregnancy?

    “Even now, most constitutional lawyers and scholars are in agreement that Roe is a constitutional train wreck, but they are not agreed as to why.”

    I’m sure you could assemble ten legal scholars and arrive at twenty different opinions on the Bill of Rights. It’s what they do. Roe v. Wade is a tasty dish to them. To women up and down the nation, it’s the breath of life that gives them the right to live finally as human beings and not slaves.

    “Roe denied the basis of common law”.

    What does that even mean? Common law is law made by judges. Judges made this law, there were nine of them. They took the constitution and made common law from it.

    “Another fundamental right is the right to life. People have a right to live. Liberals have long dismissed the claim that an unborn child is not a living person and not entitled to the right to life”

    So who are you attacking now, liberals or the Supreme Court? Make your mind up!

    “Expenditure of federal funds should be to protect rights”

    Well no. There are many reasons to expend federal funds. For instance it makes sense to spend money for scientific study. No rights there, just the kind of sensible investment that has made your country, not Britain (my own country) one of the foremost industrial countries in the world.

    “Blackmun did also write that if we could determine when life actually occurs, then the 14th Amendment would apply and Roe would effectively be shut down.”

    That doesn’t make sense. The 14th amendment was held to apply by the Roe court. Far from being shut down, it was held by the court.

    “ll body systems present at 8 weeks, functional at 11 weeks”

    No native red blood cells until, I think, 12 weeks. This is a mosaic of development which is not anywhere near complete until after the second trimester.

    “They [Planned Parenthood] take money from the federal government and use it to offset other expenditures on which they are legally disallowed to spend it.”

    Not really. Suppose my friend James is a lifelong gambler. I oppose gambling, but I know he is trustworthy. Every month I give him ten pounds to spend on his life’s work, which is running a soup kitchen in Charing Cross. He publishes accounts, and I can see that my money is being put to good use. My friend James is a gambler, but his work feeding the poor is separately accounted for and in good order. He is worthy of my trust. Obviously I don’t agree with his gambling, but I don’t fund his gambling.

    Tony Sidaway

    April 13, 2011 at 5:03 pm

  12. Look, I’m not interested in going on a blow-by-blow with you comparing ignorance because what you’re attempting to do now is a common liberal tactic of deviating from the real point of discussion by picking apart every point on which you feel you can comment and thinking that you’re going to magically change my mind about the real point. I’m not going to play silly games, particularly with a foreigner who has no vested interest in the topic. I’m not here to entertain you.

    The topic is abortion and government funding it. It’s wrong. It’s murder. Just because it’s “lawful” does not make it right, particularly in the eyes of God. I’ve tried to explain this to you, but you can’t see through your own progressive liberalism to see the moral underpinnings. You don’t want to understand it.

    Regardless of the nonsense you spew, no matter how many strawman and red herrings you employ, it doesn’t change the fact that Planned Parenthood is using federal money and that their marketing mandate is to be the biggest US provider of abortions. That’s what they do. That’s who they are – abortions-r-us. That’s all they care about. Giving money to these people means the federal government is subsidizing abortion. Splitting hairs and trying to get down to the infinitesimal details does not change the reality or the morality – neither of which you seem to understand or care about.

    So, unless you have something meaningful to contribute…


    April 14, 2011 at 9:37 am

  13. Well, Rick, I rest my case on the findings of the medical profession and of medical science.

    If I’m spewing nonsense, as you so charitably put it, so are the trained professionals. If ever the kind of vermin who hound abortion doctors and murder them in the United States raise their heads in my country I and my countrymen will stamp them until they give up.

    Tony Sidaway

    April 15, 2011 at 4:58 pm

  14. >> stamp them until they give up.

    Very nice, I wish you the best of luck. As I said before, people who murder abortion doctors are no better than the doctors who murder unborn babies. What still boggles my mind is how you can continue to be angry about murder on the one hand and not the other.


    April 15, 2011 at 6:15 pm

  15. You’ve conceded that abortion is (in certain circumstances) lawful. Now ignoring emotive language and personal attacks, your point is that God says it’s wrong. I could say that God says eating fish is murder and there’s absolutely no way you could disprove that so such arguments from invisible authority don’t carry much weight (not to mention that they are frequently as nonsensical as this example).

    Now despite your acceptance of the lawfulness of abortion, you continue to call it murder and you argue that those who perform lawful abortions are as bad as those who unlawfully kill them. You call both murderers. Do you not see a problem there?

    It’s a bit like the fish claim again. We cannot accuse people of serious crimes by application of personal standards that are inaccessible to others. I don’t get to accuse you of murdering fish and you don’t get to accuse doctors who conduct lawful abortions of murdering babies. At least, not if either of us expects to be taken seriously in a court of law.

    Tony Sidaway

    April 17, 2011 at 2:20 am

  16. Some liberals just never learn.

    Throughout this entire time-wasting thread, I haven’t disagreed about the “lawfulness” of abortion. It’s lawful in the US, according to man’s law. But it is not “right” and it certainly as heck isn’t “moral”. Not everything that is lawful is right or moral. For people to make this claim is for them to accept that man is the sole purveyor of morality. Since you have seen fit to attack God because he is “invisible” it’s clear that you accept no higher morality than what you personally deem is right in your own eyes.

    So, yeah, I can’t disprove that killing a fish isn’t murder because we don’t agree on the same levels of morality. I accept mine from the Holy Scriptures. You just accept whatever is right to you. So because we don’t have a fundamental source of truth in common, we won’t ever agree on anything of any real substance.

    But that suits me just fine. I think I would be far more comfortable with my position, either standing before the Almighty God or not than you would be with yours. In short, if I were wrong and abortion is okay, then I still haven’t committed an offense towards anyone because I chose to protect life and abstain from the act. But if I’m right, then by your defense of so-called abortion rights, you become a defender of murder.

    Murder is wrong both in a humanist sense and in a Godly sense. What you don’t accept is that abortion is murder because you don’t believe that the thing being murdered, a human baby, is human enough to be accorded the rights and privileges of humanity. It’s people like you that cheapen the very precious life. Instead, you would equate human life to that of a fish. That offends me.

    No. I see no problem in calling those that kill abortion doctors murderers in the same vein as killing an unborn baby because both are the slaughter of human beings.

    Finally, with regards to your, again strawman attacks, I don’t accuse because it isn’t my law that abortion doctors violate. God is the Righeous Judge and only He can judge those that trespass His law.

    But the secular humanist position is to stick their head in the sand because they choose not to believe in God, not for the sake of rational evidence, but because they simply do not want to accept any morality higher than their own. So these people create laws to attempt to establish a moral sense, rather than using morals to create laws. By the way, George Washington, Founding Father to us, traitor and upriser to you, spoke of having a national morality apart from man, unlike the whims of King George V who wanted all to be in subjugation to his rule. After all, isn’t that the relationship between the Crown and the Church of England – worship as the Crown wishes, not as man feels the need in his own heart? Which country won that argument, anyway, Mr. Englishman?

    God was here before the United States, Britain, and the rest of the earth, by the way. I think He gets to make the rules, not the courts.

    By the way, since you’re so enamored with the United States, take a look at the early history of the US, say during the time we declared independence from Britain. Many of those reasons were God-driven. I subscribe to the belief that this country is “one nation under God”. Yours is..what…God save the Queen? Either way, in both instances it’s God who is the final authority, despite the fact He chooses to not become visible.

    The thing is, in America, there is this ever growing push to legislate through the bench then to allow legislatures to govern. Congress makes laws, the courts are only supposed to interpret them according to what is actually written in the Constitution. I really could care less about the court’s opinion – because our laws should not be written by a handful of non-accountable elitists. That’s all the courts and the legal system are – and why Shakespeare advocated the position of drowning all the lawyers.

    Of course, that too would be murder.

    By the way, if you’re going to cry and whine over my emotive language, personal attacks, or my “charitablity”, well, I suggest you go get your kicks on someone else’s blog. By commenting here, you are subject to being ridiculed and disparaged at my whims – this is my blog, if you haven’t figured it out. If you can’t handle that, kindly send me $30 (the costs to keep the lights on here at TRC) and I won’t ridicule you. Otherwise, deal with it.

    Have fun playing with your fish. I personally like mine with butter and lemon pepper.


    April 17, 2011 at 2:41 pm

  17. […] It’s amazing how much the media makes Planned Parenthood to be this great women’s advocacy group, even though the greatest majority of the money they pull in goes to fund abortions.  I wrote about this and got into a comment fight with some idiot Brit on the topic a couple months ag… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: